Note: The degree of negligence
under § 14-222a is ordinary civil negligence. State v. Kluttz, 9 Conn.
App. 686, 698-99 (1987). The state may allege either statutory negligence or
common-law negligence. Tailor the instruction accordingly. If both theories of
negligence are submitted to the jury, the court should instruct the jury that
they must be unanimous on the type of negligence found.

The defendant is charged [in count __]
with negligent homicide with a motor vehicle. The statute defining this offense
imposes punishment on any person who, in consequence of the negligent operation
of a motor vehicle, causes the death of another person.

For you to find the defendant guilty
of this charge, the state must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable
doubt:

Element 1 - Death of a personThe first element is that a person has
died, here <insert name of decedent>.

Element 2 - Negligent operation
of a motor vehicleThe second element is that the
defendant operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner. A person "operates" a
motor vehicle within the meaning of the statute when, while in the vehicle,
(he/she) intentionally does any act or makes use of any mechanical or
electrical agency that alone or in sequence sets in motion the motive power of
the vehicle. A person acts "intentionally" with respect to conduct when (his/her) conscious objective is to engage in such conduct
<See Intent: General, Instruction 2.3-1.>

The defendant must have operated the
motor vehicle in a negligent manner. Negligence is the violation of a legal
duty that one person owes to another to exercise reasonable care for the safety
of that person. There are, for purposes of this case, two kinds of negligence: statutory negligence and
common-law negligence. Statutory negligence is the failure to conform one's
conduct to a duty imposed by the legislature through the enactment of a statute.
Common-law negligence is a violation of the duty to
use reasonable care under the circumstances. A violation of either of these
duties is negligence.

As I just stated, common-law negligence is the failure
to use reasonable care under the circumstances. Reasonable care is the care
that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same circumstances. Thus,
negligence is doing something that a reasonably prudent person would not do
under the circumstances, or failing to do what a reasonably prudent person would
do under the circumstances. The use of proper care in a given situation is the
care that an ordinarily prudent person would use in view of the surrounding
circumstances. In determining the care that a reasonably prudent person would
use in the same circumstances, you should consider all of the circumstances
which were known or should have been known to the defendant at the time of the
conduct in question. Whether care is reasonable depends upon the dangers that a
reasonable person would perceive in those circumstances. It is common sense
that the more dangerous the circumstances, the greater the care that ought to be
exercised.

Before determining whether the
defendant used reasonable care, you must determine whether the defendant owed
another person a duty of care. The test of the existence of a duty to use
reasonable care is to be found in the foreseeability that harm of the general
nature as that which occurred may result if that care is not exercised. Therefore, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, in
view of the circumstances as (he/she) knew them or in the reasonable exercise of
(his/her) faculties should have known them, should have reasonably anticipated
that unless (he/she) used reasonable care, harm of the same general nature as
that inflicted upon the deceased would or could occur.

In determining what is reasonable care
under all the circumstances, the conduct of the defendant should be judged from
the viewpoint of the reasonably prudent person. A driver of an automobile is
entitled to assume that other drivers will obey the law. The driver may thus
assume that other drivers will obey all statutes governing the operation of
motor vehicles in this state and that they will use the care that a reasonably
prudent person would use in the same circumstances. The driver is allowed to
make this assumption until (he/she) knows, or in the exercise of reasonable care
should have known, that such an assumption is no longer warranted.

Statutory negligence is the failure to
conform one's conduct to a duty imposed by the legislature through the enactment
of a statute. By enacting such a law, the legislature has determined the
appropriate standard of care to which an individual's conduct must conform. Conduct that violates the requirements of such statute constitutes evidence of
negligence.

The state alleges that the defendant
has violated the motor vehicle statute <identify statute and explain what it
proscribes and how the defendant allegedly violated it>.

Therefore, if the state proves to you
beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant violated this motor vehicle
statute, that would be evidence of negligence, because it would be a breach of
the duty of care in the operation of a motor vehicle as defined by the statute.

You may find that the defendant's
conduct was negligent if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the state has
proved either common-law negligence or statutory negligence.

Element 3 - Proximate cause of
deathThe third element is that the
defendant's negligent operation of a motor vehicle was the proximate cause of
<insert name of decedent>'s death. You must find beyond a reasonable doubt
that <insert name of decedent> died as a result of the defendant's negligent
operation of the motor vehicle. <See
Proximate Cause, Instruction 2.6-1.>

Keep in mind that any negligence on <insert
name of decedent>'s part is irrelevant to your determination of the
defendant's guilt or non-guilt of this charge. <Insert name of decedent>'s
reasonable or unreasonable operation of (his/her) motor vehicle does not relieve
the defendant from (his/her) duty to operate (his/her) motor vehicle in a careful
and cautious manner.1

Conclusion

In summary, the state must prove
beyond a reasonable doubt 1) the death of <insert name of decedent>, 2)
that the defendant operated a motor vehicle in a negligent manner, and 3) that
the defendant's negligent operation of the motor vehicle caused the death.

If you unanimously find that the state
has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the crime of
negligent homicide with a motor vehicle, then you shall find the defendant
guilty. On the other hand, if you unanimously find that the state has failed to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements, you shall then find the
defendant not guilty.
________________________________________________________

1 Contributory
negligence is not a defense in a prosecution for negligent homicide with a motor
vehicle unless such negligence on the part of the decedent is found to be the
sole proximate cause of the death. State v. Scribner, 72 Conn. App. 736, 741 (2002). An
instruction on contributory negligence and efficient intervening should be
included if warranted by the facts of the case. See id.; State v. Arrington,
81 Conn. App. 518, 522-25, cert. granted on other grounds, 268 Conn. 922 (2004)
(appeal withdrawn, judgment vacated April 21, 2005).

Commentary

Negligent homicide with a motor
vehicle is a lesser included offense of misconduct with a motor vehicle.
State v. Pickles, 28 Conn. App. 283, 288 (1992); State v. Kluttz, 9
Conn. App. 686, 698-99 (1987) (although § 14-222a is a motor vehicle violation
rather than a crime, it can be considered a crime for purposes of the lesser
included offense doctrine).

Sentence EnhancerEffective
July 1, 2007, section 14-222a (b) provides an enhanced penalty if the motor
vehicle is a commercial vehicle. The jury must find this fact proved beyond a
reasonable doubt. See
Sentence Enhancers, Instruction
2.11-4. See
Motor Vehicle, Commercial in the
Glossary.